audiobook Einstein's Jewish Science: Physics at the Intersection of Politics and Religion by Steven Gimbel in History

Review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. ... is only about the way Nazis labeled things they disliked. In factBy dsmThe title misleads one to think it is only about the way Nazis labeled things they disliked. In fact; there is a complete discussion of what constituted Aryan science; why it was so identified; and why it therefore missed so many new revelations. The writing about how culture and religion affect personal outlooks is excellent; as is the discussion of the "breaking up" of thought into different religions.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. ComplicatedBy CustomerThis is perhaps a little more than I bargained for...Maybe I'll be smarter next year.Delivery and condition of product was excellent.2 of 3 people found the following review helpful. A New way of thinking about "Jewish" scienceBy C. M. StahlThe title is suggestive of the concept put forth by the Third Reich’s notion of science. Tt was influenced by politics. But that simplistic concept based on racism and fanaticism is not really what Gimbel sets out to dispel. His book is deeper than that. He probes a question that he raises about the cultural and religious influences on scientific thinking. The idea of scientific impartiality as incorrect has been delved into much over the years. There is a lot to it as we see currently by the slews of journal retractions; firings and even arrests for scientific fraud. We knew of Hitler’s “Jewish” science theories and Stalin’s devotion to his genetic quack Lysenko. Science for all of its moral purity and self-correction has a history replete with charlatans.Yet daily there are thousands of researchers toiling away with pure thoughts and a devotion to the scientific method. Men and women who know that their work may be proven for naught at some future date despite its promise today. Gimbel focuses on their efforts with a question about bias. He does not present an answer but merely poses questions. Do researchers inadvertently let a socio-cultural bias seep into their work? Is there a corruption of their science based on their beliefs? Without answering the questions he raises; Gimbel provides food for thought.This reader was unwilling to accept that the laws that have stood the test of time such as Newton’s mechanics and optics; relativity; Boltzman’s statistical probabilities or Heisenberg’s uncertainty could be tainted by their own bias because these ideas have been studied and evaluated for in some cases centuries. Even when they are discarded for the proof of new theories on the surface they appear as science in its pure form. Gimbel begs the reader to ponder some other ideas.He asks several questions about the Jewish influence on Einstein and his Relativity theory. Was Einstein a Jew? He suggests that he was not in the religious sense yet he was influenced by the cultural dicta of that heritage. The tradition of Judaism came with a sense of awe when encountering the world. Feynman wrote about this continually and he also was secular but Jewish. It is a passion if not a duty to be in a state of wonderment. Having answers is far less exhilarating than having questions. That certainly could be seen in the works of Einstein both of his theories and the thought problems he proposed throughout his life. In addition a traditional liberalism exists that allows one to question.Was Newton’s a Protestant science? This reviewer would have scoffed at this notion prior to reading the book as he would have at the concept of Descartes being a Catholic scientist. Gimbel makes compelling points about both given the times in which they lived; the strictures of theological philosophy. Protestantism was borne in part out of the gainsay of papal authority. In Spinoza like fashion the Protestants were less likely back then to accept divine authority coming from a human. On the Catholic side they were only recently emerging from the inquisitions that forced early scientific philosophers from being anything less than cryptic in their writing. So possibly there is a sort of Protestant and Catholic science as there is a Jewish science. It is a new avenue of thinking when pondering the history and philosophy of science.As Gimbel points out Auguste Comte proposed that early science sort of unraveled in three stages. Initially it was religious with a design to prove the glory of God’s efforts. The metamorphosis of a butterfly was viewed as a specific design of a deity. The next stage was metaphysics and wonderment about our place in the world-a somewhat more secular supposition. Finally positivist or material and empirical way of viewing the world and nature. Those transitional stages do not come easily as Darwin found when unwrapping his Origins and Natural Selection treatises. It does not sit all that well in the current United States and its very large adherence to Genesis.Ultimately Einstein held pretty firm to notions like enlightenment; freedom and creativity. Like his secular predecessor Spinoza; theses ideals were paramount to the betterment of society. Sans the ability to think freely we are subject to the rules of authority which have no philosophical control but certainly governmental control. The freedom to act ethically under the law of man offers the possibilities of new thinking and represses excesses. Creativity is necessary for the culture to expand and thrive.There is much more to say about the book but not in this venue. Read it yourself for more details. The takeaway is that Gimbel suggests to the slightly interested reader some food for thought. For the avid reader the same plus a plethora of ideas to explore. He does not proffer as many answers as he does questions.